Cross Examination Zac Grant, University of Kansas 1982
- Arms Sales: The Politics of Destruction |
|
Cross-examination is one of the most exciting aspects of academic debate because it is t perhaps the most revealing. During cross-ex, the respondent is stripped of the ability to "set himself up" by presenting arguments in the order and manner of his/her choice. As a result, a good series of questions can reduce many arguments (and debaters) to rubble. As the ( argumentative facade tumbles down, the floundering victim is forced to near-blithering, and the often-rendered response, "My colleague will deal with that in our next speech," emerges. Unfortunately, cross-ex is also one of the most poorly performed facets of academic debate. Because many participants don't know how to use cross-ex, the full value of this time is infrequently realized. For this reason, this essay shall attempt to provide insight into the purposes and techniques of cross examination. Hopefully, such insights can lead to a more effective use of this potentially lethal argumentative weapon. Initially, we must uncover the purposes of cross examination. One of the central problems faced by debaters who are asking cross-ex questions is that they lack any sense of purpose or planning. Because they have no specific goals in mind, they don't get very far in cross-ex. The first objective of cross-exam is to obtain valuable information. While the exact nature of the answers sought will vary from situation to situation, the search for information is a guiding principle of a well-performed cross-ex. The critical difference between information obtained during a speech and that obtained in cross-ex is found in the nature of dialogue. Unlike a speech (monologue), cross exam (dialogue) can proceed only with the cooperation of both parties. The parties make agreements during the course of dialogue which facilitate the process of interrogation and reply. There are two basic types of agreement to be considered, and both can be used by the questioner to his/her advantage. First, there is explicit agreement. The questioner is constantly generating potential sources of explicit agreement by simply asking questions. Each answer commits the respondent to a particular position. The questioner then has the option of using the answer as the foundation of a further argument. For example, if we asked an affirmative speaker on this year's topic whether a U.S. arms cutoff would stop the flow of arms to a particular country, we could take advantage of his answer whether it was yes or no. If the answer was no, this is obviously a link to a solvency argument. If the answer was yes, there are numerous disadvantage possibilities which emerge. In either case, we may choose to agree with the affirmative answer as the basis for a further argument. Moreover, the affirmative cannot refute this foundation, since it was the affirmative team that provided it in cross-ex! While there are many potential types of explicit agreement:
Almost two years ago, I participated in a debate in which this tactic became important. Our opponents presented an argument in first affirmative which demanded that all evidence be "on balance" evidence. My colleague and I were confused as to the exact meaning of this standard so we probed for clarification in cross-ex. The first affirmative explained that all evidence presented had to make an internal, on balance recommendation regarding their policy or else it should be disregarded. Evidence which examined particular aspects of the policy without considering the whole were to have no bearing on the debate. After a brief deliberation which followed the cross-ex, my colleague and I decided to agree to the affirmative evidence standard. As it turned out, almost all of the first affirmative evidence related to specific advantages of the case can made no internal, on-balance recommendations, thus failing to meet their own test for validity. In fact, my colleague and I had a large number of cards on this case, about 20 of which were filed under a label called "blurbs." These cards seemed perfectly suited to the evidence standard as it had been described by the affirmative. The judge decided that the affirmative had made quite a mistake in advocating this standard, since their evidence on the specifics was better than ours. Unfortunately for our opponents, the irreversible nature of their explicit agreement on the evidence standard produced a "battle of the blurbs"--and a negative ballot. This experience taught me to press for the ultimate implication of all such decision rules early in the debate. Many times these evidence or argument standards can be clarified in cross-ex and used against the affirmative in later speeches. When disregarded, such standards tend to take on hideous dimensions in the affirmative rebuttals (when it is too late for the negative to deal with them). A second, and more subtle form of agreement occurs during cross examination. Implicit agreements are made during every question. As Perelman explains:
The best use of such agreements is drawn from carefully-worded questions. By arranging the circumstances of a question delicately, damaging admissions can be obtained. A very good example comes to mind from this year's topic. If the affirmative cuts off arms sales to a foreign country, the negative might ask, "Will our allies also restrain themselves from selling arms to this country?" (Notice that this question refers to "our allies" as a group, as though they act in concert.) The affirmative is faced with a very difficult answer. If the answer is no, then the affirmative solvency is destroyed because our allies will act to offset the plan. If the answer is yes, there is the explicit agreement that neither the U.S., nor any other free-world ally will supply arms. However, this agreement is implicitly limited to these countries by the carefully limited question. If the negative wants to argue that the Soviets will take over the supply of arms to this country, their job is made much easier by the affirmative's implicit agreement that virtually no country but the U.S.S.R. will even consider supplying arms. The focus of the supply substitution argument has been shifted entirely to the soviet union by the affirmative's "admission" that our allies will not circumvent the plan. Since the question does not mention the Soviets, the affirmative is unlikely to guard against this angle of attack. The situation can be further enhanced if the affirmative can be made to agree that the country to be embargoed is desperate for weapons. In seeking particular implicit or explicit points of agreement to be used against our opponents, a number of techniques can be used. Combination of these strategies can he employed quite effectively to achieve our objectives. The first tactic we shall consider involves the order and direction of questions. Questions should be arranged, if possible, so that the respondent has no idea of the true importance of his/her answer. The apparent relationship between questions should ideally mask their true relationship. For example, in the case of the question regarding "our allies" discussed above, it may be fruitful to precede the crucial question with a series of irrelevant, but apparently meaningful, questions regarding affirmative solvency ("Has this been tried before?" "Does the President approve of your plan?" "Is your solvency evidence based on empirical examples?"). Once the affirmative speaker is convinced that you are pursuing solvency, there will be a strong tendency to answer the "allies" question by indicating they will not circumvent the plan. By making this answer appear consistent with the affirmative solvency, it is almost certain to emerge. The result, of course, is a tighter link to the "shift to the Soviets" disadvantage. This line of questioning exhibits the most powerful strategy available to the Questioner: making the answer you want to receive the same answer the respondent wants to give. A practical example should serve to illustrate the point. Back on the energy topic, nuclear power cases were fairly common. A possible line of questions to set up a terrorism disadvantage might go like this:
At this point, the Questioner has set up a good disadvantage on the invasion of privacy that will accompany nuclear power. If special SWAT teams, wiretaps, etc. will be used to stop "terrorism," many important freedoms may be lost. The press for a terrorism disadvantage has produced answers which feed a police state disadvantage. In almost any round, there can be found a series of Questions on one subject that will lead to the desired answers to he used as the foundation for an entirely different argument. To complement precise ordering and wording of questions is the habit of writing down the crucial cross-ex questions in advance. This is important particularly when the exact wording of questions makes a difference in their impact. Also, this helps one remember questions which might otherwise be forgotten. Some debaters use a system of notation in addition to writing out specific questions. A question mark on the flow might. mean a point needs clarification. A star might be a potential contradiction or the source of a line of questions which can be used to elicit desired answers on a related subject. There are particular types of questions which fit best in different cross-examination sessions. Each cross-exam features a different questioner and respondent and will therefore cover different areas, although these divisions are not necessarily concrete and inflexible. During cross-ex of the first affirmative, the second negative should first ask any questions critical to the first negative. These should be written out by the first negative s speaker. Next, the questions should center on the plan, looking for plan errors and setting up disadvantages. Finally, the questions should move to affirmative solvency and potential 2AC add-ons. Cross-ex of the first negative should first press to find an exact statement of the negative policy. See how it differs from the affirmative. Find out if disadvantages are consistent with the negative policy, especially the inherency arguments. If possible, try to show why the negative evidence is inferior or biased. Questioning of the second affirmative should begin with plan questions that were missed the first time. These should be written J out by 2NC. Once this is done, the general strategy should he to try to weaken the affirmative case arguments in relation to first negative arguments. Check for weaknesses in evidence, lack of specific extension of INC arguments, etc. Cross-examination of the 2NC is most important for the affirmative. It should be devoted to destruction of the plan attacks. In particular check to make sure that (1) the plan attacks are consistent; (2) the plan attacks do not contradict the negative policy position; (3) the plan attacks are limited specifically to the plan. If the plan has been tried before or elsewhere, has the disadvantage or plan-meet-need occurred? A good cross-ex of 2NC makes the first affirmative rebuttal much easier. One final technique should be mentioned for those who seem to run out of questions, or who can't seem to generate enough questions to get a good series going. There are three fairly safe avenues of questioning that can take up as much time as necessary, and become more difficult to answer the further questioning proceeds. These three lines of questioning are: (l)"How do you know?" (2)"What do you mean?'! and (3)"What's the significance?" "How do you know?" type questions are hest aimed at solvency. ("How do we know the plan will work?" "How does Professor Smith come to that conclusion?" "I realize he's an expert, but why does he think this will work?" "Don't you have a study or pilot program or analogous example to back up his opinion?") these questions can regress infinitely until the respondent can literally tell us no more. "What do you mean?" type questions are best used against the plan. Last year's corporal punishment cases are an excellent example ("What is corporal punis'1ment?" "Does that include mental abuse?" "What about neglect?" "Does it include scolding?"). Answers to these questions could be used to set UP circumvention or vagueness arguments. generally, the plan can be driven to a point so narrow that it doesn't solve, or so broad that it will be disadvantageous. "What's the significance?" type questions are a sophisticated version of the "Why game" we all played as children. ("Why is this plan significant?" "Why are these 4,000 deaths the government's responsibility?" "Why should we legislate the choices of others?") Again, this series of questions is subject to infinite regress. Well-considered answers are necessary to satisfy the eternally recurring "Why?" Obtaining valuable information and agreements, though important, is not the sole purpose of cross-examination. Of great importance is the "impression formation" function of cross-ex. Because cross-examination is so revealing, it can be a critical time for the judge in determining the human character of the participants. The judge may decide an individual is intelligent or dim-witted, interesting or dull, friendly or obnoxious on the basis of the impression given off in cross-ex. Since the judge must infer these characteristics from activity in the debate, the assessment is not always accurate (a blessing for some), but it is always affected in some way by the debater's conduct. This function of cross-examination is especially important for the negative (the second speaker in particular) because cross-ex of first affirmative is their opening appearance in the debate. To attempt to instruct others on how to present themselves is an extremely difficult task under any circumstances. This difficulty is compounded here by the fact that everyone who reads this essay probably needs individualized advice depending on his/her personality, age, ability to adapt, potential audience, regional expectations, and so forth. Rather than describing the fine points in detail, let's examine some guiding principles which may help direct the development of individual modes of presentation. First, we must consider style. Generally, the style or tone of one's questioning will be reflected in one's personality. Individuals who are highly self-confident will have to resist the temptation to drive the respondent too hard. This may create the impression that one is overbearing or even obnoxious. Self confident questioners should strive to emulate Jimmy Stewart more than Perry Mason. Individuals-who are less self-confident may fall prey to long-winded answers. Less confident questioners tend to get sidetracked easily. these individuals should imitate Mike Wallace more often than Don Knotts. The best solution for each of these personality types is simply to practice often enough to feel comfortable asking questions. In becoming comfortable with the situation one will probably move from a very business-like delivery to one that is more conversational. This is fine, so long as "conversational" is not synonymous with sloppy. the hest advice for overcoming personality problems or inexperience is to move to a more business-like presentation, gradually becoming more conversational with experience (i.e., from Ted Koppell or Will Rogers). Likewise, one's posture will probably change over the years, or in situations which call for a more or less business-like approach when the situation calls for a solemn outlook, posture will reflect it (i.e., eyes front, shoulders square to audience, no eye contact between Questioner and respondent). A more conversational cross-ex will exhibit correspondingly more casual gestures and posture. Once again, the key to good presentation is practice. The particular style which evolves should suit your personality. Some debaters are not as business-like, humorous, aggressive, etc. as others. To go along with these comments regarding style are a few rules concerning demeanor in cross-ex. There are particular rules of etiquette to be followed in asking and answering questions. Observation of these rules will not only improve your image, hut can actually contribute to your argumentative position as well. Initially, let's consider some rules to remember when asking Questions. First, the Questioner should avoid the appearance of trickery or craftiness. This will prevent the witness-from becoming defensive and may lead him to inadvertent admissions damaging to his position. Second, questions should be clear and comprehensible. The judge cannot reward you for admissions drawn from questions s/he cannot understand. moreover, your opponent is less likely to answer two or three short question correctly than a single, comprehensive question which spells out the predicament in detail. Third., do not stray for the task of asking questions. Cross-ex is not a convenient time for reading more evidence or making new arguments. Stick to asking questions. Fourth, do not allow your opponent to take over the cross-ex. You have the right to interrupt long-winded answers, but you must do so politely. The hest way to cut off a long answer is simply to say, "O.K." or "Thank you." If this fails, the next interruption should he, "I think I understand now. Thank you." Should the respondent continue, you may try again with, "I'd like to go to another question." Make sure to leave enough time between interruptions to show that it is clearly the respondent who is being uncooperative. If after two or three such interruptions the respondent continues to speak, it is best to let him/her finish. The judge will probably understand without the assistance of eye rolling, watch-checking, or other nonverbal cues. When the respondent has finished, you may want to suggest s/he, "put the rest in a letter," or that "it should make a riveting dissertation." Such temptation is best left alone however. It is best to proceed undaunted on to another question. When answering questions one should observe similar rules of etiquette. First, don't argue with the questioner under any circumstances. The first person to shout in a debate will lose 92% of the time. Second, give the shortest possible complete answer. If the answer cannot be yes or no, go ahead and qualify it. Make sure to give the qualifier before saying yes or no, however, as you may be cut off. If you don't know the answer, say "I'll have to check." If you say, "I don't know" it will look bad should you come up with a spectacular answer later in the debate. (Note: when asking questions take advantage of "I don't know" answers by clarifying with "Your position for this debate is that you don't know the answer?") By giving short answers, you may be able to exhaust your interrogator's list of questions, which means his colleague will lose prep time. Third, if you can concede irrelevant points, do so. Reasonable admissions will not hurt you and may in fact increase your credibility as a fair and open-minded person. As Perelman explains:
In fact, such a ploy may even throw your opponent off course, according to Aristotle:
Finally, there may be situations in which you are vastly more skilled in asking or answering questions than your opponent. At such times politeness is paramount. There is no need to try to take advantage of these individuals. using your normal tactics should be more than enough. Attempting to stretch your advantage may seriously impair your credibility. Also, some debaters will "play possum," hoping to lure you into toying with them, then striking when you least expect it. These people are fans of Lt. Columbo. While the ideas presented here are far from a complete "how to" treatise on cross-examination, hopefully they can provide a starting point for greater expertise in question and answer techniques. With practice, every debater should be able to improve his/her ability to garner valuable information and create a favorable impression while doing so. 5, 6 Notes:
|